Comments on: Holland and the gap, again http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/holland-and-the-gap-again/ Truth Will Prevail Sun, 12 Feb 2012 05:49:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Mark D. http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/holland-and-the-gap-again/#comment-301098 Mark D. Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:31:55 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=9898#comment-301098 I have a hard time believing that anything of any merit whatsoever isn't partially inspired. I have a hard time believing that anything of any merit whatsoever isn’t partially inspired.

]]> By: Robert G. http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/holland-and-the-gap-again/#comment-301091 Robert G. Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:02:28 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=9898#comment-301091 Does the church allow for the possibility that the Quran or at least portions of it are inspired? I believe so. In 1978, the First Presidency said, “the great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.” First Presidency statement, Feb. 15, 1978. Does the church allow for the possibility that the Quran or at least portions of it are inspired? I believe so. In 1978, the First Presidency said, “the great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.” First Presidency statement, Feb. 15, 1978.

]]> By: Douglas Hunter http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/holland-and-the-gap-again/#comment-301073 Douglas Hunter Sat, 17 Oct 2009 06:28:36 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=9898#comment-301073 "For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed . . ." I have yet to see a deconstruction of the BOM, but would certainly welcome it as Christianity in general as well as Mormonism contain a good deal of deconstructive potential. A deconstruction of the BOM would, I think, bring a lot of the book's radical potential to the forefront. Potential that is so often held in check by the conservative and merely heroic approach so often taken to the BOM. A deconstruction of the BOM would represent a true moment of the return of the repressed. “For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed . . .”

I have yet to see a deconstruction of the BOM, but would certainly welcome it as Christianity in general as well as Mormonism contain a good deal of deconstructive potential. A deconstruction of the BOM would, I think, bring a lot of the book’s radical potential to the forefront. Potential that is so often held in check by the conservative and merely heroic approach so often taken to the BOM. A deconstruction of the BOM would represent a true moment of the return of the repressed.

]]> By: JT http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/holland-and-the-gap-again/#comment-300900 JT Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:36:47 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=9898#comment-300900 When is Brigham (Frandsen) going to weigh in? I was on his freshman floor at BYU. One of the brightest people I have ever met. It apparently runs in the family. When is Brigham (Frandsen) going to weigh in? I was on his freshman floor at BYU. One of the brightest people I have ever met. It apparently runs in the family.

]]> By: Adam Greenwood http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/holland-and-the-gap-again/#comment-300887 Adam Greenwood Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:38:03 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=9898#comment-300887 My understanding, also, is that Muslims claim that no man could have written the Koran because of the exceptional beauty of its language and the force of its doctrine. It seems to me that this is essentially a different class of claim from the ones made by Mormon apologists. My understanding, also, is that Muslims claim that no man could have written the Koran because of the exceptional beauty of its language and the force of its doctrine. It seems to me that this is essentially a different class of claim from the ones made by Mormon apologists.

]]> By: Bob http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/holland-and-the-gap-again/#comment-300878 Bob Tue, 13 Oct 2009 03:33:27 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=9898#comment-300878 #48: Res ipsa loquitur can only be a beginning. In Tort law, you still have the burden to define the negligence and ID the negligent party. #48: Res ipsa loquitur can only be a beginning. In Tort law, you still have the burden to define the negligence and ID the negligent party.

]]> By: Bob http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/holland-and-the-gap-again/#comment-300877 Bob Tue, 13 Oct 2009 03:27:00 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=9898#comment-300877 #47: Kaimi, you are right, I am wrong. During my drive-by readings of the post, I went right thru the AS stop sign. I am still uncomfortable with the image of an "unlearned" Joseph Smith. It is only about ten years between the coming of the BoM and Nauvoo. Clearly, during this time, Joseph Smith showed he was a great man in speech and religious thought, if not in writing. (Not just a farm boy). This is not to say he wrote the BoM. I am only talking about the unlearned farm boy image as compelling evidence of his inabilities. #47: Kaimi, you are right, I am wrong. During my drive-by readings of the post, I went right thru the AS stop sign.

I am still uncomfortable with the image of an “unlearned” Joseph Smith. It is only about ten years between the coming of the BoM and Nauvoo. Clearly, during this time, Joseph Smith showed he was a great man in speech and religious thought, if not in writing. (Not just a farm boy). This is not to say he wrote the BoM. I am only talking about the unlearned farm boy image as compelling evidence of his inabilities.

]]> By: Kaimi Wenger http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/holland-and-the-gap-again/#comment-300864 Kaimi Wenger Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:44:56 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=9898#comment-300864 It's a whole pride of Frandsens -- horray! It’s a whole pride of Frandsens — horray!

]]> By: Rachel http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/holland-and-the-gap-again/#comment-300862 Rachel Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:38:36 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=9898#comment-300862 #20 (Daddy) The res ipsa loquitur premise for understanding Elder Holland's talk works nicely at first, but res ipsa loquitur is really only applicable where there is no evidence available to the plaintiff to prove his allegation. Practically speaking, the church doesn't take that approach. Missionaries don't tell investigators that the default assumption is that the BoM is true, and that they should weigh the evidence of the opposition to see if it is compelling, they prompt their investigators to search out for themselves and prove to themselves that the BoM is divine in origin. Tell me if I'm wrong, but for the BoM to be divine in origin, it has to have really been written by ancient prophets and translated by Joseph Smith. Most of the time we are urged to find evidence of the truthfulness of the BoM through spiritual manifestations (which can't be disputed by fact and I would say is thus not empirical), but another way of proving it would be to establish incontrovertible evidence that it was written by ancient prophets etc (which can be disputed by fact, and is subject to the God of the Gaps trouble. Or rather, subject to falsification). Either way, it seems like the believer still bears the burden of proof. But, I don't believe you need to prove anything to a third party anyway, or rather, I don't believe you can prove anything to a third party. Like Rosalynde said, I don't believe in that verificationalist/finitist interpretation of Mormonism (though I do like Mormonism's materialist theology). #20 (Daddy)
The res ipsa loquitur premise for understanding Elder Holland’s talk works nicely at first, but res ipsa loquitur is really only applicable where there is no evidence available to the plaintiff to prove his allegation. Practically speaking, the church doesn’t take that approach. Missionaries don’t tell investigators that the default assumption is that the BoM is true, and that they should weigh the evidence of the opposition to see if it is compelling, they prompt their investigators to search out for themselves and prove to themselves that the BoM is divine in origin. Tell me if I’m wrong, but for the BoM to be divine in origin, it has to have really been written by ancient prophets and translated by Joseph Smith. Most of the time we are urged to find evidence of the truthfulness of the BoM through spiritual manifestations (which can’t be disputed by fact and I would say is thus not empirical), but another way of proving it would be to establish incontrovertible evidence that it was written by ancient prophets etc (which can be disputed by fact, and is subject to the God of the Gaps trouble. Or rather, subject to falsification). Either way, it seems like the believer still bears the burden of proof.

But, I don’t believe you need to prove anything to a third party anyway, or rather, I don’t believe you can prove anything to a third party. Like Rosalynde said, I don’t believe in that verificationalist/finitist interpretation of Mormonism (though I do like Mormonism’s materialist theology).

]]> By: Kaimi Wenger http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/10/holland-and-the-gap-again/#comment-300861 Kaimi Wenger Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:34:24 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=9898#comment-300861 Bob, You're missing an important preposition: "Most of the world thinks it’s AS impossible that Joseph Smith could have written the Book of Mormon, or had it written, AS you and I and Elder Holland do that the unlearned Muhammad could have written the Quran." Matt does NOT say that "Most of the world thinks it’s impossible that Joseph Smith could have written the Book of Mormon, or had it written." That seems to be how you're reading it, but that is not what he's saying. Bob,

You’re missing an important preposition:

“Most of the world thinks it’s AS impossible that Joseph Smith could have written the Book of Mormon, or had it written, AS you and I and Elder Holland do that the unlearned Muhammad could have written the Quran.”

Matt does NOT say that “Most of the world thinks it’s impossible that Joseph Smith could have written the Book of Mormon, or had it written.” That seems to be how you’re reading it, but that is not what he’s saying.

]]>